 russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
1 edit | Something doesn't add up.... If they can get 12-30 frames in 1.4k, more power to them! | |
|
 | tsarath
join:2002-05-04
Palo Alto, CA
| Re: Something doesn't add up.... This is because in an MPEG stream losing a key I-Frame in the GOP means the next 12-15 frames are useless. And MPEG codecs normally do not provide error correction and recovery as in VoIP. Hence you need a FEC mechanism at the Set-top box to compensate. | |
|
| | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | Re: Something doesn't add up.... Yep, cable uses FEC (Reed-Solomon codes). AT&T ought to be able to do it too, so a dropped packet isn't catastrophic. If they were really depending on every single packet getting through.... not too smart. | |
|
| | | tsarath
join:2002-05-04
Palo Alto, CA | Re: Something doesn't add up.... Reading the article, "Sources close to the situation say AT&T engineers are experimenting with forward error correction (FEC)" it seems to indicate At&t are not using FEC at this point in the current deployment, hence the issues discussed. | |
|
| | | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Something doesn't add up.... said by tsarath  :Reading the article, "Sources close to the situation say AT&T engineers are experimenting with forward error correction (FEC)" it seems to indicate At&t are not using FEC at this point in the current deployment, hence the issues discussed. They are using FEC on the VDSL. I do get quite a few FEC errors as my toddler has yanked on the coax that conects the 2wire. IF the coax sits just right, FEC errors disappear. I will replace that coax as soon as get stop her from yanking on the cable. | |
|
| | | audiog
join:2004-08-09
Detroit, MI
| Well
The big problem is the use of FEC.
In the pro digital world and in your CD, DSD and DVD player Reed-Solomon error correction is used in a 2 layered interleaved form or Cross-Interleaved Reed Solomon Coding (CIRC). This allows for greater redundancy of the data stream.
From time to time I use a Meitner Box( for AD and DA decoding/encoding and it is a monster at CIRC( up to half data stream corruption is when it is audible). It recovered a bad DAT( slightly gnawed on by years transfers) that held the only copy of and Atlantic record vault item( the original and copies were destroyed in a vault fire). But at $6500 it is a bit out of consumer hands. | |
|
| | tk7
join:2005-05-09 | I thought that you could recover the picture from the next I frame by "subtracting" the subsequent P or B frames, or am I thinking of a higher numbered MPEG standard? | |
|
| frnkblk0
join:2002-08-25
Sioux Center, IA | Sensationalist lead....technically true in a specific scenario, but doesn't speak the whole picture.
Frank | |
|
BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL | I said it before ..... FTTN is not good enough. In order to achieve a good result, you need FTTP. Their 6MB connection from the node to the premises is just not going to cut it. | |
|
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Re: I said it before ..... Big suprise trying to stuff a bluewhale down a drain pipe, oh sorry a "tube". | |
|
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Its 25 megabits minimum. Some are seeing far more than that. The six meg portion is only for the Internet (surfing, etc.) connection.
The uverseusers.com thread cited at the bottom of the article also says that they are aware of the problem and are working on the fix. This is why you test in a small area first before releasing a product. Issues in the first deployment are not unusual and in fact expected.
I too want to see the math behind 1/2 second of video being 1400 bytes (or even 2800 if its two packets). That would mean it's running at 22 kilobits/second. Something about that is just nor right.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | 
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: I said it before ..... said by RadioDoc :I too want to see the math behind 1/2 second of video being 1400 bytes (or even 2800 if its two packets). That would mean it's running at 22 kilobits/second. Something about that is just nor right. Because mpeg4 is a extremely compressed format when you lose a few KB of data you are actually loosing a whole bunch more. So, the amplification factor can be 20-40 depending on mpeg4 level and profile in use. Also there are some control and timing information too for codec sync. So, loss of information has grave effect on this compressed format. (You save bandwidth but it comes with a cost) | |
|
| bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | It's not the bandwidth, it's the medium. | |
|
WheresmyFiber
@embarqhsd.net | See att See at&t what happens when you don't want to spend the money to invest in FTTH/fttp. | |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Not a huge deal yet. This is a brand new service, people shouldn't expect it to be perfect. Looks like problems are minor in nature. I'm sure they are working OT to get this fixed especially if this is the model for their future.
Doesn't really matter, we are still going to kick their ass.  | |
|
| 
jeffjs
join:2000-12-11
US
 ·Comcast
| Re: Not a huge deal yet. This is not new - it's been around for 10 years, and they might be working around the clock, but they will not find a fix any time soon.
This is a known problem and has been for years.
--
I walk upon this Earth by the power of my own two legs. | |
|
| | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: Not a huge deal yet. said by jeffjs :This is not new - it's been around for 10 years, and they might be working around the clock, but they will not find a fix any time soon. This is a known problem and has been for years. your saying IPTV has been around for 10 years? Where? | |
|
| | |
jeffjs
join:2000-12-11
US
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Not a huge deal yet. IPTV has been here for over 10 years, has been deployed in hospitality market for about 8, has been deployed in residential for about 5 (BellCanada, Qwest, SaskTel, others)
--
I walk upon this Earth by the power of my own two legs. | |
|
| | | |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Re: Not a huge deal yet. said by jeffjs :IPTV has been here for over 10 years, has been deployed in hospitality market for about 8, has been deployed in residential for about 5 (BellCanada, Qwest, SaskTel, others) Qwest has had a very limited IPTV system in "The People's Republic of Boulder", Colorado for years.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
|
| | | | | |
itguy05
join:2005-06-17
Camp Hill, PA | ms Typical for MS garbage software - after all most IPTV stuff runs on WinCE. This is why you never bet your company of future on MS. | |
|
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: ms Typical gratuitous thread-crapping Microsoft bashing.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA | Fios use a MS plataform and is not having this problems. ATT problems is all about the network. | |
|
| |
Microht
@192.234.x.x | Re: ms No, FIOS is having its own sets of issues and I'm not sure FIOS is a MS platform, but I could be wrong. | |
|
| | | chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Re: ms "
REDMOND, Wash., Jan. 28, 2005 — Verizon announced today that Verizon will use the Microsoft TV platform for the commercial rollout of Verizon's FiOS TV service, planned for later this year.
The Microsoft TV platform will support high-definition television, digital video recording and on-demand programming offered by Verizon on the FiOS platform. In addition, it will provide FiOS TV customers with an interactive programming guide that is attractive, intuitive and easy to use. Verizon and its third-party partners will use the Microsoft software to add advanced applications for future FiOS TV services, differentiating Verizon in the marketplace and bringing consumers the benefits of voice, video and data convergence.
"
»www.microsoft.com/presspass/pres···epr.mspx | |
|
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Dropped packets = network problem, no MS problem... If the set top boxes were blue screening or locking up mid-show, such a comment might be warranted...
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower | |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet Using QOS mechanisms and creating a 2 tier internet with quaranteed priority for video would solve AT&T's lost packet problems. | |
|
| |
| | 
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA | Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet And you are going to clue us in to the alternative? | |
|
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet "Channelization," for a lack of a better word... You setup your EU to have a X Mbps pipe... Video data is given a certain, dedicated slice of that pipe, say A Mbps... Non-video data is given the remaining, dedicated slice of the remaining bandwidth, B Mbps. Traffic from one slice of the pipe never affects the other slice.
Its basically what the MSOs do with their VoIP offerings, EoD and cable modems... And it works much better than QoS.
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower | |
|
| | | |
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA | Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet Tit for tat, you are still suggesting a two tier system... | |
|
| | | | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet That's not a "two tier" system... Two tier system means that all data streams share the same channel and one gets preferential treatment over the other.
This is a multi-channel system where neither has preference. The channels merely carry specific data to the EU.
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower | |
|
| | 
richardpor
Fur it up
join:2003-04-19
Portland, OR
| Err you do if one once to transfer IPTV form Google to your home. and that video has to compete ,a la net neutrality, with other traffic on the internet. One going to lose more that n a half a second of video.
I am already having problem viewing videos at google videos. My playback is faster than my download speed and I have a 6 Meg connection. Frequent stops seems to be the rule of the day. | |
|
| | | k_mumm
join:2001-06-14
Laramie, WY
| Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet I'm sorry but you're wrong. Traffic on the internet does not "compete". Its simply a matter of the connection and both ends and the connections between. If one of those connections is saturated you are going to get slower speeds. This means that provider needs more bandwidth. Them charging again for what we already pay for is a total joke. | |
|
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| said by richardpor :Err you do if one once to transfer IPTV form Google to your home. and that video has to compete ,a la net neutrality, with other traffic on the internet. One going to lose more that n a half a second of video. I am already having problem viewing videos at google videos. My playback is faster than my download speed and I have a 6 Meg connection. Frequent stops seems to be the rule of the day. Your problem is more likely related to the server you are downloading from being overloaded or underpowered and not net-neutrality related... I've used Google video on some pretty fast connections, T3s, etc, and seen Google buffer and stop.... Buffer and stop... And finally play.
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower | |
|
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by TKJunkMail :Using QOS mechanisms and creating a 2 tier internet with quaranteed priority for video would solve AT&T's lost packet problems. Why would ATT need a 2 tiered system if it travels within their own network?  | |
|
| | 
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet Obviously because they need a double-tier within their own network, too, because they cannot gaurantee their own network will work.
...scary, no? | |
|
| | 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17
| said by moonpuppy :said by TKJunkMail :Using QOS mechanisms and creating a 2 tier internet with quaranteed priority for video would solve AT&T's lost packet problems. said by TKJunkMail :Using QOS mechanisms and creating a 2 tier internet with quaranteed priority for video would solve AT&T's lost packet problems. said by k_mumm :I'm sorry but you're wrong. Traffic on the internet does not "compete". Its simply a matter of the connection and both ends and the connections between. If one of those connections is saturated you are going to get slower speeds. This means that provider needs more bandwidth. Them charging again for what we already pay for is a total joke. Why would ATT need a 2 tiered system if it travels within their own network?
... lol a 2 tier system for at&t's internal network. If the host does not have the capacity to tv and internet than having a 2 tier internet would not help them... just isp trying to double dip their hand into the cookie jar. | |
|
| | |
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet said by ftthz :Why would ATT need a 2 tiered system if it travels within their own network? ... lol a 2 tier system for at&t's internal network. If the host does not have the capacity to tv and internet than having a 2 tier internet would not help them... just isp trying to double dip their hand into the cookie jar. Double dip what? Are they going to charge themselves? All the press releases I saw were pointing to the businesses wanting QoS over the internet, plus you'd pay for IPTV, and that would have to already include QoS if it was allowed...I don't see your argument. | |
|
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by TKJunkMail :Using QOS mechanisms and creating a 2 tier internet with quaranteed priority for video would solve AT&T's lost packet problems. If AT&T is using its broadband delivery service to move IPTV packets, and they institute QoS, then they simply move the problem, they don't solve it.
I seriously doubt though, that AT&T is delivering its IPTV service in such a manner. Cable TV companies don't even do it that way.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
1 edit | Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet Precisely. The second tier won't facilitate a response to this quandry. It isn't a mythical no-packet-dropping addition.
They need to work on how they can failsafe their video distribution method if one lost packet is screwing it for any noticable period of time. | |
|
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: IPTV would work if AT&T used 2 tier internet said by tsu9 :They need to work on how they can failsafe their video distribution method if one lost packet is screwing it for any noticable period of time. Fewer frames per packet... It will result in higher packet counts across routers and will result in higher router CPU loads, but it will lower the vulnerability of video streams to packet loss.
Buffering is the another option too, but it has drawbacks.
They could also take the MSO model and dedicate X Mbps out of the whole pipe to video, that way there is no contention among packets on the EU's line... Its how the MSOs have delivered video, voice and data for years.
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower | |
|
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by tsu9 :They need to work on how they can failsafe their video distribution method if one lost packet is screwing it for any noticable period of time. True, but don't forget that the customer is probably not going to care about what technology is being used to provide the service. They will care that they are pissing away a lot of money each month on a service that does not work as advertised, however.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Why don't you explain why we need a two-tiered internet instead of just QoS? Unless it's because the corporations are clammoring for it and you buy their argument that they're doing it for the consumer. Or you don't buy their story at all but somehow think we'll buy yours. | |
|
|
Orwell1984
@rr.com
| This is a point that really burns me. The Telcos need to build a new network to realize their own ambitions. Yahoo, Google, et al don't need the new network. All of their apps work now. The ones needing the extra capacity are the telcos who want to be cablecos. That is what they want to hijack the internet to finance. AT&T needs a new network for their own plans to work but they want someone, anyone, else to finance it. | |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
1 edit | Does anyone else besides myself see a problem with this ummm..rollout?
If we were to start a AT&T rollout map similar to the one in the Verizon forum for their fios..it would look something similar to pin the tail on the donkey...umm..err..San Antonio.
I'm sure it won't be long now until this one particular BBR user who shall remain nameless who is either a big uverse supporter or an AT&T employee, or both..comes in to link to my post to try to shoot this down but I was brought up in a family that taught me that if a company has announced all these huge plans, supposedly committed 5 billion bucks to something..and months later, while the likes of Verizon and their plans..and the Cable Co's and their plans, roll out things like 30MB fiber and Comcasts 16MB powerboost,
that the company holding a block party in San Antonio who has what appears to be just a few customers in that one city cheering them on with their 5.something MB Lightspeed service that doesn't even have HDTV...and the service appears to be nowhere else..and now stories like this are coming out saying "it's packet loss stupid"..that maybe..just maybe..the public hasn't been completely leveled with..ya know what I mean?
And I KNOW, It's RR..err..Comcast Rick here blowing wind again and I will soon be accussed of being one of the three (cable) stooges being paid by someone for my comments, but really, what I am isn't that at all.
I'm just like you....or most of you anyway. Just a broadband customer..and a long time one at that.
I have no affiliation to either the telco or cable industry..receive no compensation from anyone for my opinions...
I'm just sitting here in AT&T land watching as Verizon land pulls off some pretty amazing things resulting in some world class competition..and my guy (namely AT&T)..is lying flat against the ropes while the likes of Comcast beats him to a really bloody pulp.
And what I want my guy to do is to get back up somehow...
realize that the boxer over in the other ring is really the one who learned how to throw some wicked punches...
and join him in using HIS strategy against the big bad mean Cable giants.
Because you know why? Because that's what's gonna make the battle great..the prices fall...our net speeds soar..and the HDTV Lion.....Roar. | |
|
| cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Does anyone else besides myself see a problem with this said by Rick :ummm..rollout? If we were to start a AT&T rollout map similar to the one in the Verizon forum for their fios..it would look something similar to pin the tail on the donkey...umm..err..San Antonio. And a year ago Verizon rollout was a game of pin the tail on ummm..err.. keller, texas. You remember that right?
I'm sure it won't be long now until this one particular BBR user who shall remain nameless who is either a big uverse supporter or an AT&T employee, or both..comes in to link to my post to try to shoot this down but I was brought up in a family that taught me that if a company has announced all these huge plans, supposedly committed 5 billion bucks to something..and months later, while the likes of Verizon and their plans..and the Cable Co's and their plans, roll out things like 30MB fiber and Comcasts 16MB powerboost,
I guess you want ATT to write a $5B check and have service available nationwide the next day? My parent taught my not be stupid and unrealistic. And ATT is about year behind verizon on starting their rollout and you can fualt them for not starting sooner.
And I dont work for ATT either.... | |
|
| | |
| | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: Does anyone else besides myself see a problem with this said by Rick :Oh, here you are, I've been waiting for you. Did you take the afternoon off? Another block party going on in san antonio by any chance?  I won't bother responding here..i just did in the other thread. Sorry to disappoint I was busy at work. | |
|
| | | | Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX | Re: Does anyone else besides myself see a problem with this Don't you have a charge code for your timesheet?
Geesh... I knew who he was referring to before I even scrolled down to see your name. | |
|
| | Enlightener
join:2006-01-28
Cedar Park, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| 1 year behind Verizon? You gotta be kidding. Your only comparing the video roll out date of Sep 22, 2005.
In reality FIOS is about more then video, it's about BLAZING data speeds. Speeds AT&T can't touch with a ten foot poll.
And by the way, Verizon has been rolling the actual FTTP out for several years now. I remember being pissed that they passed my old house in Virginia just after I moved to Texas and all I could get with SBC at the time was 1.5mb. Since then an RT has gotten me to 6MB ( funny, seems like FTTN won't do shit for me there ) and nowhere near what I could have had in Virginia. | |
|
Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| This is why they want QOS This is the main reason the ILECS want QOS (no net-neutrality). For some reason people are going to think that they will block your Google, MSN, or Myspace if they don't pay, but they have never mentioned that part of the plan. They only do that in Canada. I hope this opens some peoples eyes. | |
|
|
See 22 replies to this post |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Competition will Solve the Problem If the users who experience these problems switch to cable or satellite TV, then AT&T will find a very effective solution to this problem, very quickly.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Re: Competition will Solve the Problem Not sure if you have to sign a yearly contract to get IPTV with at&t but if you do switching would be very expensive to do with a termination fee. I would say if problems like this do leak out then at&t will have a hard time signing up new customers and current customers will be stuck. | |
|
| |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Competition will Solve the Problem said by viperpa33s :Not sure if you have to sign a yearly contract to get IPTV with at&t but if you do switching would be very expensive to do with a termination fee. People have been able to exit cell phone contracts when the company involved fails to provide adequate service. Perhaps this could be a precedent to quitting any such promotion if the service stinks.
--
Tancredo 2008! | |
|
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: Competition will Solve the Problem said by pnh102 :People have been able to exit cell phone contracts when the company involved fails to provide adequate service. Perhaps this could be a precedent to quitting any such promotion if the service stinks. It would be, but because all of these services ride over IP and old infrastructure, there's a good chance that T is going to say that the service is best effort and there are no gaurantees. Its how they all deal with DSL right now.
Of course the franchise agreements may be the saving grace that establishes what "adequate service" actually is... If the mess of those agreements ever gets straightened out.
--
"Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong."
—Dwight Eisenhower | |
|
| | | | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Re: Competition will Solve the Problem It seems to me like bandwidth delivery and your tv not showing a picture are two different beasts. I doubt even the fossils in the government will let shitty TV service fly remember it is all about perception since most of these bozos only have some their primary senses left to think with. | |
|
alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  AT&T Bean Counters!
| |
|
StinkyTheCat
@comcast.net
| It's Spelled Wrong! It's really IPee TV. As in Pee U! I just hope ATT and Verizon spend oodles of money on their fiber programs so they'll fall all the harder! These weenies cant fix simple problems without transfering your calls thirty times around the phone bank. They should stick to technology they understand like the crappy twisted pair with a phone dangeling on the end of it!
Get real,Their engineers are MORONS! | |
|
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Re: It's Spelled Wrong! Haha what a cute little troll. | |
|
|
marathons5
join:2002-01-13
Ridgefield, CT
| at&t appears to be overly touchy about the subject? If you go into the at&t (www.uverseusers.com or www.satechblog.com) websites. They are totally into damage control. If you live in San Antonio, call up and try and schedule an install. Even their technicians and installers will tell you that they are stopping installations right now to try and fix some bugs? Ask an installer what the problems are.
This is not something to cry about or attempt to slap down. Just explain what is really going on and how it can be fixed?
Right now U-verse is only in neighborhoods were almost everyone works for at&t. Gosh, wonder why that is?
Reminds me of a story about "The Emperors New Clothes"
Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until his son, the prince, said:
"But he has nothing on "!
This was whispered from person to person until everyone in the crowd was shouting that the emperor had nothing on. The emperor heard it and felt that they were correct, but held his head high and finished the procession. Guido and Luigi escaped during the procession when they realized they had been found out.
Let start up a poll: Who is the emperor? and Who are Guido and Luigi?
Hint: the answers are in the att websites listed above!
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Empero···_Clothes | |
|
| cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: at&t appears to be overly touchy about the subject? said by marathons5 :If you go into the at&t (www.uverseusers.com or www.satechblog.com) websites. They are totally into damage control. If you live in San Antonio, call up and try and schedule an install. Even their technicians and installers will tell you that they are stopping installations right now to try and fix some bugs? Ask an installer what the problems are. This is not something to cry about or attempt to slap down. Just explain what is really going on and how it can be fixed? They did have a pause on installs in june for upgrades, but I beielve they have continued again. Satechblog and uverseusers are just pointing out they are not experiencing the problems the reporter claims. THis is not to say there are not problem, but they do not appear to affecting the end customer. The poster with the largest u-verse problems appears to be a troll as he he posting from RR.com and dodges details on his problems. Another user mentioned in the article had his problems resolved. This reporter quite simpley did not do enough investigation to end user problems. | |
|
| | 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Re: at&t appears to be overly touchy about the subject? The shill strikes again! | |
|
| | | cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX
| Re: at&t appears to be overly touchy about the subject? said by digitalfreak :The shill strikes again! Is anything I posted incorrect or false? | |
|
|
|
|
Trouble With AT&T's IPTV
